AT&T TOS:5. Termination or Cancellation of Serviceb. Suspension/Termination by AT&T or Yahoo!. AT&T respects freedom of expression and believes it is a foundation of our free society to express differing points of view. AT&T will not terminate, disconnect or suspend service because of the views you or we express on public policy matters, political issues or political campaigns. AT&T and/or Yahoo! may, however, immediately terminate or suspend your Member Account and Sub Accounts, and all or a portion of your Service without notice if: (a) your payment is more than 30 days overdue; (b) you provide false or inaccurate information to AT&T; (c) you (or a Sub Account associated with your Member ID) violate this Agreement or the AT&T Acceptable Use Policy; (d) you (or a Sub Account associated with your Member ID) engage in conduct that is a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws); or (e) if you engage in conduct that is threatening, abusive or harassing to AT&T or Yahoo employees, including, for example, making threats to physically harm or damage employee or company property; frequent use of profane or vulgar language; or repeatedly contacting our customer service representatives for reasons that do not pertain to our provisioning, maintenance, repair or general servicing of your high speed Internet access service after you have been asked to stop such conduct.

How about an ISP TOS that includes language that the ISP will stay out of your business and the ISP promises to make sure that all Americans who want high speed internet have it.

Instead, we have ISP throttling and spying on content then giving a bunch of 3rd party records to the US Government and have immunity from litigation under the Patriot Act. What a load of crap!

Better yet is that any notice from the ISP comes only via the ISP's e-mail system. How many people actually use the e-mail account their ISP gave them? I know I've never touched mine. I use a webmail account for general crap, and my own server for important things.

Torrents aside, in the current environment of government surveillance in the United States it almost seems a VPN would be something any informed PC user would use. Mine costs less than $50 a year and I bought it to use my work WiFi without work snooping.

And this is why every device in my house (with the exception of my XBox and PS3) is setup with a vpn connection. I don't use torrents for anything except for legal purposes (Freepbx distros and so on) but I don't want to take any chances. A lot of my work is done from home, and the only other provider in my area has a 50 gig monthly cap.

Many people now use VoIP services for voice exclusively, and not necessarily provided by their ISP. Cutting off Internet would also then terminate voice calling, including emergency calls. I'm pretty sure that violates life-line basic service requirements in many states.

I don´t see how why this would be so wrong if they can actually prove it and that is the big problems with this stuff that involves bits and bytes.

This is not limited to piracy alone but any illegal activity with their services, like DOS attacks, spamming, etc.

Does your cell phone carrier let you use their service for illegal stuff as well? Like calling bomb threats or harassing people? No. So does the cable TV provider, or any service provider. Internet access is one thing. Using the connection for illegal stuff, online fraud, piracy, hacking, spam, child porn, or any other of that stuff is illegal since the Internet exists.

The problem with Internet is who defines how did something illegal.

As for the persons saying get a VPN that does not solve the problem either. The VPNs you get are usually from companies in datacenters and there the Internet is even more heavy hand on illegal stuff, so its not like you can get a VPN and use it for illegal stuff all you want. Or your account will be shut down or the whole company is going to eventually vanish when their provider shuts them down.

Torrents aside, in the current environment of government surveillance in the United States it almost seems a VPN would be something any informed PC user would use. Mine costs less than $50 a year and I bought it to use my work WiFi without work snooping.

Wrong. VPNs have an overhead on the connection. You get a drop on speeds between 30% and 50%. Most users do not want to do anything that slows their connection. And unless your VPN is very close to you, which kills the idea of hiding your location in the first place, then its going to be slower. That, and you need to keep another connection active. The whole connection is more sensitive to latency and cuts, because now you added another layer again to your connection and most cheap VPNs suck.

The only way of using a VPN which are nice, is if you are having your own dedicated server only for the VPN, so you can control its bandwidth and quality and at the end point connect to the VPN via hardware, this means on the switch, which reconnects automatically on failure, nothing to be done on your end computer.

And both the server and your end should be on very high speeds.

Now, this costs way more of what the usual Joe is willing to pay. Cheap VPNs accounts are oversold and work awful.

So while a VPN may work for some people its not the perfect solution. Also, using a VPN for casual browsing and data is pointless. What would you be so afraid you need to hide everything you do online?

You also miss a big point at this. Someone that is willing to pay an extra 50$ for a VPN service, usually does not do piracy either. Its usually the ones that can´t pay extra money for anything.

I'd love to send back "“Using my Internet service to infringe my rights is illegal and a violation of my Internet Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), which apply to the providers of my account, and could result in mitigation measures including limitation of payment or even suspension or termination of my use of your services ever again."

Not that I support pirating. But what I really don't support, is AT&T.

Many people now use VoIP services for voice exclusively, and not necessarily provided by their ISP. Cutting off Internet would also then terminate voice calling, including emergency calls. I'm pretty sure that violates life-line basic service requirements in many states.

You can call 911 even without phone service, I think, using a landline. Kinda like any cell phone, given power and signal, can make a 911 call.

The fact that you don't have a wired phone wouldn't be relevant so long as the capability is readily available t you.

I'd test it with mine, but I don't even own any device that can even use a phone jack anymore.

People complains about government surveillance but they are ok with corporations (thirds) spying ALL your traffic. That makes no sense

Mind pointing out who's okay with this?

Either way if you want to make that argument. I'm not forced to do business with a corporation. I can easily tell AT&T to piss off and find another provider.

A government agency on the other hand has the ability to spy on me whether I go through AT&T, Charter, WideOpenWest, or Comcast.

must be nice if my ISP decides to drop me im SOL...

when you type something like this about the major ISPs you have to remember that a vast number of people in this country only have acess to 1-2 ISPs in their area. Usually 1 cable and 1 slow DSL. Telling them to piss off usually isnt an option.

I don´t see how why this would be so wrong if they can actually prove it and that is the big problems with this stuff that involves bits and bytes.This is not limited to piracy alone but any illegal activity with their services, like DOS attacks, spamming, etc.Does your cell phone carrier let you use their service for illegal stuff as well? Like calling bomb threats or harassing people? No. So does the cable TV provider, or any service provider. Internet access is one thing. Using the connection for illegal stuff, online fraud, piracy, hacking, spam, child porn, or any other of that stuff is illegal since the Internet exists.The problem with Internet is who defines how did something illegal.As for the persons saying get a VPN that does not solve the problem either. The VPNs you get are usually from companies in datacenters and there the Internet is even more heavy hand on illegal stuff, so its not like you can get a VPN and use it for illegal stuff all you want. Or your account will be shut down or the whole company is going to eventually vanish when their provider shuts them down.

All the times I have harassed people and called in bomb threats, AT&T is always there to keep my cell service going after I get out of jail. Come one man, ISPs shouldn't be spying on your packets and then shutting off service because they "convict" you of some illegal act. AT&T should not be in the "conviction" business. They should be in the good broadband and cell business.

I don´t see how why this would be so wrong if they can actually prove it and that is the big problems with this stuff that involves bits and bytes.This is not limited to piracy alone but any illegal activity with their services, like DOS attacks, spamming, etc.Does your cell phone carrier let you use their service for illegal stuff as well? Like calling bomb threats or harassing people? No. So does the cable TV provider, or any service provider. Internet access is one thing. Using the connection for illegal stuff, online fraud, piracy, hacking, spam, child porn, or any other of that stuff is illegal since the Internet exists.The problem with Internet is who defines how did something illegal.As for the persons saying get a VPN that does not solve the problem either. The VPNs you get are usually from companies in datacenters and there the Internet is even more heavy hand on illegal stuff, so its not like you can get a VPN and use it for illegal stuff all you want. Or your account will be shut down or the whole company is going to eventually vanish when their provider shuts them down.

All the times I have harassed people and called in bomb threats, AT&T is always there to keep my cell service going after I get out of jail. Come one man, ISPs shouldn't be spying on your packets and then shutting off service because they "convict" you of some illegal act. AT&T should not be in the "conviction" business. They should be in the good broadband and cell business.

The problem is that DPI need not even be involved. The whole six strikes thing just goes from one step to another based upon accusations. No actual legal authority needs to ever see the accusation in order to validate its authenticity via trial.

Personally, if ISP's are going to get into DPI. I say that they should lose all safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. Same with Verizon asserting free speech rights over their network.

Let me get this straight, AT&T is spying on our communications looking for copyrighted stuff? I hope they are ready for the lawsuits since admission of knowledge to the content in their network blow away the safe harbor provisions. Just imagine the chances of some content slipping trough, Some of the more litigious copyright owners will likely use AT&T as personal copyright police too I just hope they at least eat the added costs because an anti-piracy surcharge in the phone/internet bill would be hard to swallow for most.

Do suspected pot growers get their electricity cut off? Do suspected con artists get their phone service cut off?

The UN declared internet connectivity a human right. Why the FUCK is it even legal for an ISP to cut you off for something as piss-ant as copyright infringement for a mere accusation without investigation or merit?

Do suspected pot growers get their electricity cut off? Do suspected con artists get their phone service cut off?

The UN declared internet connectivity a human right. Why the FUCK is it even legal for an ISP to cut you off for something as piss-ant as copyright infringement for a mere accusation without investigation or merit?

No, suspected pot growers have the cops get a search warrant and then they get their houses searched.

As far as something as "piss-ant" as copyright infringement: If you're torrenting 250 GB of movies a month, it's like the electricity for grow lights. Maybe they start looking around, especially if the studios say that you're seeding 75 of their latest movies, no?

Do suspected pot growers get their electricity cut off? Do suspected con artists get their phone service cut off?

The UN declared internet connectivity a human right. Why the FUCK is it even legal for an ISP to cut you off for something as piss-ant as copyright infringement for a mere accusation without investigation or merit?

No, suspected pot growers have the cops get a search warrant and then they get their houses searched.

As far as something as "piss-ant" as copyright infringement: If you're torrenting 250 GB of movies a month, it's like the electricity for grow lights. Maybe they start looking around, especially if the studios say that you're seeding 75 of their latest movies, no?

Except that copyright infringement is a civil matter, so the police don't get involved. Therefore the ISPs are being asked to extrajudicially convict people based on shoddy evidence and no oversight of crimes that aren't crimes.

Torrents aside, in the current environment of government surveillance in the United States it almost seems a VPN would be something any informed PC user would use. Mine costs less than $50 a year and I bought it to use my work WiFi without work snooping.

Wrong. VPNs have an overhead on the connection. You get a drop on speeds between 30% and 50%. Most users do not want to do anything that slows their connection. And unless your VPN is very close to you, which kills the idea of hiding your location in the first place, then its going to be slower. That, and you need to keep another connection active. The whole connection is more sensitive to latency and cuts, because now you added another layer again to your connection and most cheap VPNs suck.

Say I had a VPN very close to me, in an adjacent country, would I see that kind of overhead? (which has a 100mbit dedicated line)

Though using VPNs for torrenting seems daft, why not just use a seedbox.

The UN declared internet connectivity a human right. Why the FUCK is it even legal for an ISP to cut you off for something as piss-ant as copyright infringement for a mere accusation without investigation or merit?

It isn't that it's legal. It's that it's not illegal.

They figure, "CYA, let's just avoid legal issues in the future" and wave the proverbial banhammer around. Maybe they even use it once or twice.

Until there's a law actually declaring Internet access to be a sovereign right (LMFAO — what about shelter, clean water, food, or electricity? Four things that are more important than being able to Tweet or check in on Foursquare), it's perfectly legal for your ISP to cut you off for whatever reason they deem fit.

I don't disagree with you, I'm just answering your question. Although I do think it's funny that anyone considers the Internet a basic human right. Read a book. That's what my father did when he was my age and I'm not half the geek he was.

I'd love to send back "“Using my Internet service to infringe my rights is illegal and a violation of my Internet Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), which apply to the providers of my account, and could result in mitigation measures including limitation of payment or even suspension or termination of my use of your services ever again."

Not that I support pirating. But what I really don't support, is AT&T.

Utility companies are more than happy to accept these terms as long as you pay for the service you used. Hell, our electricity provider decided they needed our payment three days early this month (and it also went up $70 a month — we're on that average payment plan, so it's the same thing every month, based on an average) and could we get an extension to pay it on payday when it was originally due? Nope, dip into your savings or get it cut off — and pay a reconnection fee to get it cut back on. And the one cable company out here won't even let us pay for service. We live less than a quarter mile from where their service ends, and they won't run the cable out to us.

These monopolies need to be broken up. One ISP, one cable provider, one power company, etc., per region, is not working. These companies don't care about retaining customers. They don't care about improving services. They have no motivation whatsoever, not only to do better, but to do good at all. They will make their money either way. Basic services should be available to all, but let's yank the safety net out. Let's let other companies offer people service, advertise lower rates and better service, and let the existing companies improve, or get left behind.

1. Open a company with your friends, create content.2. Get all your friends pirating it. Get the whole country pirating it.3. Providers go bankrupt after canceling all contracts.4. ...5. New providers and competition!

What many of the actual pirates miss in their indignation over being banned for doing something that is actually illegal is that AT&T is protecting themselves from lawsuits as well as protecting their 'Safe Harbor' status. If they are found to be NOT making a legitimate effort to remove infringing accounts, They could be found accountable by a court. That said, when is the law going to put a stop to the frivolous abuse of the DCMA by the big media companies that are making this law so hated? The people abusing the DCMA are making it seem that this is just a law made to allow the big media to smother any little guys in their zeal to monopolize media.

- The monitoring is being done by an 'independent' 3rd party, Dtecnet. (its a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a large company at this point.- Using the Vuze BT client in violation of the terms of use for Vuze, they gather IP addresses they see in swarms of popular files.- This system was 'vetted' as accurate by a 3rd party who was once paid nearly $700,000 by the RIAA, a sitting member of the board of CCI.- A 2nd review was promised but still not delivered months after they embarrassed themselves using the services of a firm paid to support the position of the RIAA.- CCI claimed that disconnection was entirely off the table as part of the program.- CCI changed pages on their website without informing their partners leading to alerts pointing to 404 pages instead of offering alleged alternatives.

Dtecnet was the company that in a lawsuit in Australia created filesharing to report on. See Roadshow vs iiNET.Dtecnet is the company that on behalf of HBO sent a DMCA notice to Google demanding that material posted that infringed on the rights of HBO be taken down. The pages in question were on HBO.com.

A CCI notice is NOT a DMCA notice, so invoking the wording of the DMCA seems like a stretch.They have so much faith in these notices they limit your possible responses to challenge, and force you to pay a fee to challenge, and that will be heard by an arbitrator they selected. Totally a fair system.

It is nice that the White House opted to bless corporations creating their own quasi-legal system.This program isn't open to all copyright holders, does not include all ISPs (only those with content creation divisions).With disconnection on the table now we have a wonderful reason to ask why many of the participants in this program are allowed to hold monopoly access in areas of the country.Consumers are not allowed to show their displeasure and move to another provider, and are having a secret system forced on them and are at its whim.

This system took 4 years to get off the ground and they spend millions, in that same period they offered no new system to sell content to consumers or adjust a single price to compete in the market. There is an existing legal system, but they have been allowed to create their own private system to use in its stead. This program features much of the power they wanted to pass in new laws that the people rose up and fought back against.

AT&T is not protecting themselves, they are acting as judge, jury, executioner. The DMCA notice should be sent to the alleged guilty party. But because of how the law has been twisted - Google gets millions to takedown notices that are not sent to the actual sites allegedly infringing. Google isn't the host of these sites, but is forced to deal with content holders who want to make their own rules. Google can't remove the content from the net, merely from a search engine. This does not address what the law is supposed to cover. but it is easier to allow them to do what they want than to end up in court spending millions fighting off corporations who want special rules.

And AT&T lets everyone know that they officially position themselves as freely surrendering stooges of the MPAA/RIAA. I hope for them that being lapdogs of the lawyer world's bottom-feeding scum, because this position of theirs (that they spy on everyone's traffic and make themselves the judge and jury of your traffic's legality) is going to cost them.

And AT&T lets everyone know that they officially position themselves as freely surrendering stooges of the MPAA/RIAA. I hope for them that being lapdogs of the lawyer world's bottom-feeding scum, because this position of theirs (that they spy on everyone's traffic and make themselves the judge and jury of your traffic's legality) is going to cost them.

I think cutting off access is stupid, but how do figure its going to cost them over and beyond the obvious they lose the $70 a month from the person they cut off? Most people do not have options when it comes to services and the majority of people outside of tech sites do not care at all if pirates are cut off or not. They are a business and I'm sure they are being rewarded for their efforts to stop piracy. So it makes business sense. They will prob never ban more than one or 2 people to send a message. People think they are entitled to criminal protections or other rights of a court when it comes to businesses deciding whether or not to cut off your service, but the truth is besides some exceptions (nondiscrimination, etc.) AT&T can do whatever they want. They do not owe you anything like a right to appeal a notice etc. One of the perks of being in a monopoly. The alternative is the government runs the ISPs but with the amount of spying already going on is that really the group you want managing your internet access?

And AT&T lets everyone know that they officially position themselves as freely surrendering stooges of the MPAA/RIAA. I hope for them that being lapdogs of the lawyer world's bottom-feeding scum, because this position of theirs (that they spy on everyone's traffic and make themselves the judge and jury of your traffic's legality) is going to cost them.

I think cutting off access is stupid, but how do figure its going to cost them over and beyond the obvious they lose the $70 a month from the person they cut off? Most people do not have options when it comes to services and the majority of people outside of tech sites do not care at all if pirates are cut off or not. They are a business and I'm sure they are being rewarded for their efforts to stop piracy. So it makes business sense. They will prob never ban more than one or 2 people to send a message. People think they are entitled to criminal protections or other rights of a court when it comes to businesses deciding whether or not to cut off your service, but the truth is besides some exceptions (nondiscrimination, etc.) AT&T can do whatever they want. They do not owe you anything like a right to appeal a notice etc. One of the perks of being in a monopoly. The alternative is the government runs the ISPs but with the amount of spying already going on is that really the group you want managing your internet access?

Contrary to the old saying, there is such a thing as bad publicity. And because there are plenty of large markets where multiple big providers are competing for business, having a reputation of an axe-wielding executioner out for pirate blood is not going to do too well to attract new customers, now is it?

Anybody who doesn't think that AT&T has not turned into a malignant cyst on the ovary of freedom is naive. They are to communication what BofA is to banking. From intentionally confusing cellular bills and hidden service fees and caps, to draconian policies, then use their size to bully individuals and government agencies. Drop them like a hot rock.

What many of the actual pirates miss in their indignation over being banned for doing something that is actually illegal is that AT&T is protecting themselves from lawsuits as well as protecting their 'Safe Harbor' status.

I thought Safe Harbor only applies to hosters, but not ISPs.If AT&T actively uses DPI, wouldn't that make them liable in case they miss something illegal?

Better yet is that any notice from the ISP comes only via the ISP's e-mail system. How many people actually use the e-mail account their ISP gave them? I know I've never touched mine. I use a webmail account for general crap, and my own server for important things.

Nowadays ATT requires you set a 'notification email address' (had to reinstate my account last month after putting it on hold for 2 months).

What's really funny is I do a lot of testing on this topic (I'm TorrentFreak's lead researcher) and never had a letter, in 6 years of using AT&T. It's almost like they know and are afraid to. Of course, I also put in for the evaluation job for the 6strikes 'evidence', but it went elsewhere - boooo.